Mastan Singh Vs. Tarlochanpreet Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1072404
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-31-2013
AppellantMastan Singh
RespondentTarlochanpreet Singh
Excerpt:
cr no.6570 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cm no.1089 cii of 2013 in/and cr no.6570 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision: january 31, 2013 mastan singh ...petitioner versus tarlochanpreet singh ...respondent coram:- hon'ble mr.justice a.n.jindal present: mr.vikas singh, advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. mr.j.chahal, advocate, for the respondent. a.n.jindal, j. (oral) this court, while issuing notice of motion on 8.11.2012 passed the following order:- “having regard to the circumstance that the case has proceeded without an adjudication on merits and having further regard to the fact that the plaintiff has lost substantial sums in the process without any benefit of the property, further execution shall remain stayed on condition that the petitioner deposits in court an amount of `20 lakhs, that would mean an amount of `15 lakh plus some nominal interest for 7 years.the amount, which the plaintiff states he has deposited, shall continue to remain in court and it shall be deposited in nationalized bank for a period of 6 months to the credit of the suit and shall not be permitted to be withdrawn by either party. further direction with regard to the manner of user of the amount not directed to cr no.6570 o”2. be deposited will abide by the decision in the case in future with such modification as this court makes. the respondent may file his objection to the petitioner's application for stay at the next date of hearing on 14.12.2012. if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the stay shall stand automatically vacated without any further reference to the court. stay of execution shall revive, if there is a violation of condition regarding deposit.” having failed to comply the order dated 8.11.2012, he filed cm no.1089 cii of 2013 for seeking extension of time to deposit the said amount, in which the following order was passed by this court on 17.1.2013:- “counsel for the petitioner states that he would still require two weeks time for making the deposit. i have already passed an order on the previous date of hearing that the order passed on 8.12.2012 works itself and it was posted for arguments today. the petitioner shall argue on the maintainability of the petition and shall also show the expression of the bonafides by the next date of hearing. respondents shall file their reply in the meanwhile. the case will result in limine dismissal if the deposit is not made. the deposit itself will not constitute any assurance that the court has condoned the delay. adjourned to 31.1.2013.” since the petitioner has not complied with the order dated cr no.6570 o”3. 8.11.2012, which was conditional, therefore, this application as well as the main petition are dismissed. january 31, 2013 (a.n.jindal) prem judge
Judgment:

CR No.6570 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1089 CII of 2013 in/and CR No.6570 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: January 31, 2013 Mastan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Tarlochanpreet Singh ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr.J.Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent.

A.N.JINDAL, J.

(Oral) This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 8.11.2012 passed the following order:- “Having regard to the circumstance that the case has proceeded without an adjudication on merits and having further regard to the fact that the plaintiff has lost substantial sums in the process without any benefit of the property, further execution shall remain stayed on condition that the petitioner deposits in Court an amount of `20 lakhs, that would mean an amount of `15 lakh plus some nominal interest for 7 yeaRs.The amount, which the plaintiff states he has deposited, shall continue to remain in Court and it shall be deposited in nationalized bank for a period of 6 months to the credit of the suit and shall not be permitted to be withdrawn by either party.

Further direction with regard to the manner of user of the amount not directed to CR No.6570 o”

2. be deposited will abide by the decision in the case in future with such modification as this Court makes.

The respondent may file his objection to the petitioner's application for stay at the next date of hearing on 14.12.2012.

If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the stay shall stand automatically vacated without any further reference to the Court.

Stay of execution shall revive, if there is a violation of condition regarding deposit.”

Having failed to comply the order dated 8.11.2012, he filed CM No.1089 CII of 2013 for seeking extension of time to deposit the said amount, in which the following order was passed by this Court on 17.1.2013:- “Counsel for the petitioner states that he would still require two weeks time for making the deposit.

I have already passed an order on the previous date of hearing that the order passed on 8.12.2012 works itself and it was posted for arguments today.

The petitioner shall argue on the maintainability of the petition and shall also show the expression of the bonafides by the next date of hearing.

Respondents shall file their reply in the meanwhile.

The case will result in limine dismissal if the deposit is not made.

The deposit itself will not constitute any assurance that the Court has condoned the delay.

Adjourned to 31.1.2013.”

Since the petitioner has not complied with the order dated CR No.6570 o”

3. 8.11.2012, which was conditional, therefore, this application as well as the main petition are dismissed.

January 31, 2013 (A.N.JINDAL) prem JUDGE